Thursday, March 03, 2011

Isnt This Interesting??

This was to interesting not to post and coming from my home state it was even better. This does not surprise me in the least. I am trying to understand why the Catholics ( I use to be one myself, so I do understand the religion), feel they should not have a spouse. Heres prime example of why I think they need to revamp their thoughts on that issue. They have been accused over and over of sexual acts on children and have been able to get away with it. Go figure. Sexual frustration will cause people to do very odd things eh??

84 comments:

Balbulican said...

Missing a link, I think.

Balbulican said...

That wasn't a comment on your post, Griz - I mean I think the link to your content is missing.

∞ ≠ ø said...

Sexual frustration will cause people to do very odd things eh??

Well, this isn’t quite right. Sounds like Maslow.
Slipery slope.

Religious people who find demons within themselves will often flee to their house of god or move closer to their faith to fight off these demons. It is a natural progression for the religious minded deviant to wind up in the cloth; and it is human nature to fail. While it is more of a spectacle than a divorce or an affair, it is no greater sin except in the case of rape or pedophilia.
This poor fellow. Does anyone believe that Holy Orders conveys a special power or spirit which allows the recipient to transcend human nature? Does it make it just to display him to the world at moment of extreme weakness? Why? Did he exalt himself over you? Do you know him to be arrogant? Why hold him to a higher standard? Why shame him for his failure where you would not shame another?
In this the Devil’s work is done.

Few Catholics ever go so far as to understand their catechism.
“This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister's sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church.”

P.S.
Eastern Rite can marry before Holy Orders but not after.

P.P.S. Link in headline.

Balbulican said...

"Why hold him to a higher standard?"

For the same reason we hold a CGA to a higher standard of fiduciary responsibility, or a cop to a higher standard of self discipline in the exercise of violence.

We're right to do so. Part of a priest's job is to counsel, interpret the word of God, hear confessions and grant absolution, all functions that require both a modicum of wisdom and a high level of trust. This priest, in this instance anyway, has shown little evidence of the first, and not much right to the second.

The state of his soul is an issue to be resolved between him and his God, and I wish him well.

∞ ≠ ø said...

CGA???!!! What???? 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10 Bean Counters!!?? Who the hell would know if they ever did anything wrong?
Would we hear about the CGA examiner (whatever) who had a huge cocaine problem?

Cops??!!! HAHAHA Ha Ha ha..ha
Domestic violence is 2 to 4 times more common in police families than in the general population. In two separate studies, 40% of police officers self-report that they have used violence against their domestic partners within the last year. In the general population, it's estimated that domestic violence occurs in about 10% of families.
And that’s just domestic stuff.
(SELF REPORTED)
They are above themselves!!!
http://www.purpleberets.org/violence_police_families.html

When is the last time a cop belted his wife on the way in to work and generated 1,590 web results?
The priest, he was drunk and lewd and mad at the world. This is hypocrisy. What a huge double standard.
This is a mass mockery and it is shameful. Bray on Give us Bara-a-a-a-bus.
The poor bastard is probably suicidal.

http://www.stvm.com/alumni/awards_and_scholarships.php
The STVM Alumni Association is pleased to present the 2010 Mahar Award Recipients:
Richard "Dick" Lang V56
Fr. Ignatius Kury VM94
Sr. Joan Monsour IHM M51
Anne Wise Bickett M67

1 year ago. Where's the press.

"We're right to do so." Nope. That shet's all left.

Balbulican said...

Shrug. I DO hold professionals to a higher standard than I do non-professionals, and so does the law.

And yes, I hold people who are in a position of trust to a higher standard. I wasn't aware that stance was "all left" - I thought is was actually kind of conservative, once - but if you now attribute it to the left, well, good for us.

∞ ≠ ø said...

FAIL!

The opportunity was wide open for you to suggest that the real issue is that this will be his third DUI.
But no, the whole thing is about priests and homoerotic suggestions. Your eye isn't on the conservative prize at all.

This guy is in a deep pile. He belongs there for three reasons.
1. Third Alcohol arrest
2. Three times legal limit.
3. I found the Jeffery Dahmer reference chilling. That should open the door for precautionary investigation.
If the cops had any brains they could have withheld the tape pending an ongoing investigation. But, they know that. What a bunch of bags.

All the attention is on his priesthood and his lewd proposition. That's the left. Missing it every time.

Balbulican said...

That's all very interesting. Perhaps someone would like to discuss that with you.

I was explaining why I hold priests to a higher standard, and others in a position trust, to a higher standard.

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Well,,alrighty then...I was going to come back with a hellava good statement earlier, but had noticed you answered Balbs comment on the higher standards already. So, carry on..lol.
The one issue I did want to hit on was Infinities comment. Am I to understand that you think people tend to gravitate towards religion to fight off demons? Is that the only reason?? Also, please explain the comment about Maslow...Also,the comment was made how the priets give absolution, thats a falacy for some religions. Noone can absolve sins but God..if you believe and I see some do and some dont, dont matter to me others personal opinion, but would like to see hardcore proof of that.

∞ ≠ ø said...

Hi GezU.S. ;)

No, here I'm looking at people whose perspective is religious. So let's say from childhood there has been a religious upbringing. Their world view and self perception has been shaped by a religion or two...whatever. In addition to religious principals greater societal values and norms are also in effect. As they mature they become aware of their 'demons'. (I used this term to imply religious precedence.)

Let's say person x develops an affinity for alcohol and loose women. While religions shun the resultant behavior, society embraces it.
Person y is homosexual. Repressed by religion to some degree, society has a much less tolerant prescription.
Person Z is a pedophile. Known pedophiles are separated from the general population even in prison.

Hate the sin not the sinner. Where is the pedophile most comfortable?
Now add to this some self loathing, good intentions, and faith in God’s love. It takes a person of strong religious convictions to consider taking the vow. Who knows what the % is of people who answer the call. The rejection and harsh judgment of society certainly sweetens the deal for the homosexual and the pedophile.

It shows.

∞ ≠ ø said...

Sidebar before Maslow:

“I used to be one myself, so I do understand the religion"

Perhaps this is an oxymoron.

∞ ≠ ø said...

Hi Gabzilla!
The following is opinion:
When you attribute the misdeeds of clergy to sexual frustration, this advocates Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Here self actualization is achieved through an existentialist paradigm. Nietzsche had a huge influence on Maslow’s work which is called humanistic psychology. Take the term self actualizing out of the context of Maslow’s work and it is immediately apparent that sexual fulfillment is not a requirement. Maslow has sex as a “physiological” and “love and belonging” need. These needs require fulfillment before the levels of “Esteem” and “self actualization” can be achieved. Many have argued that his hierarchical construct is bunk and fails when tested in other cultures.
The idea also employs a form of moral relativism from the ‘Catholic’ perspective. Therefore it is a subset of nihilism. All of this modernist and post modernist socio-philosophical stuff is, in my opinion, erosive to western culture and society. In fact it is toxic for any culture I can think of. These ideologies are inherently leftist by nature and are the cornerstones of the social thinking taught in our colleges and universities today. The effect has been both profoundly evident and insidious.
One should note the pedophilia and homosexuality are remarkably different psychological or perhaps more accurately physiological phenomena. Frustration of one does not seem to lend itself to the other.

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Infinity,
Did you just call me Gabzilla?? MM. Naughty,naughty ";) Play nice..lol. Why do feel that my statement of use to be Catholic and now not is an oxymoron?? Once thats explained I will in turn share with you why Im not. Now, also thank you for clarify that the Maslow posting is YOUR opinion. NO, I happen to come across the article of the Priest and sexual conduct, I am not saying that in particular is advocating Maslows theory. I also am quite aware of humanistic psychology...very well. I feel that like even with some of the liberals and conservatives, there is a bit of truth in everything. Now, lets take the statement you made quote,"Maslow has sex as a “physiological” and “love and belonging” need" unquote. Out of curosity, you do not think sex, love and belonging is a need????

Canuckguy said...

@Squidly
You are sometimes incoherent, you babble on, you like to hear yourself pontificate.

@ GG:
However Squidly did make a clever word play with 'Gabzilla' Nice that you have a sense of humour, GG, to take it in stride

Balbulican said...

I'm interested in a comment from CS and Griz on the notion of whether it's right to hold clergy to a higher standard. Don't want to argue, I'm just curious.

∞ ≠ ø said...

Okay, GG it is then.
I'm just playing with the idea that if one truly understood Catholicism then one would not feel compelled to leave.

I had to check to see if I inadvertently used an oxymoron in my earlier note; basic catechism. I got lucky.

In the context of Maslow I would argue that sexual frustration represents a failure of self actualization. Only at this level should sex be introduced. In this we would see that love and belonging need to be intact as a prerequisite. Sex is often used to cover for failures or deficits in the basic construct of a healthy foundation. Clearly sex can be "had" or achieved outside of love and belonging, and is often used to cover great deficits in self and social esteem. I would define this as mutual masturbation, or perhaps aesthetic conquest absent appreciation.
No, in terms of Maslow I would not define sex as a need. It is treated vaguely in what I have read from him. Perhaps this was resolved in some fashion in writings I haven’t seen, but I doubt it.
In Maslow Spirituality is not addressed until we reach the pinnacle. I would begin spiritual needs at the safety level. On this point one can begin the deconstruction of Maslow, existentialism, and its ultimate spiritual destiny, nihilism...
So the priesthood, through my fiddling with Maslow, can be healthy. Is it always; no. In that, we are all the same. Priests vow different goals for self actualization. In fact the vow, viewed through my adjusted use of Maslow, is a vow of Christ actualization.

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Good morning. CanuckGuy~yes, Squidly as you call him did have a good play on words. I can see this is a clever bunch and you all keep my on my toes.

Squidly~I meant no harm in my statement of the name. Its fine you call me whatever you are comforable with. You must lighten up a bit eh? Im not the enemy in the camp..ok?

Balbs~ you asked us if we thought we should uphold clergy to a higher standard. I had to ponder that because you see, I feel the baiting coming on ;) However, I will answer in my opinion what I think. I feel anyone who is authority has a moral standard to do what is right. Molesting children whether it be a priest, parents, teachers etc. is not acceptable. As Infinity pointed out, police have been know to be scumbags. I do feel that now a days, people are more out of control, or maybe its just coming out more because I know this sort of shame has been around for a long time.

Infinity~OK,had to really think what you were saying about the oxymoron. Can I ask why you would feel that quote,"if one truly understood Catholicism then one would not feel compelled to leave". Why not??
Next point,I will leave out a lot of points on this,however,were we created not to have sex? Did God make Eve for Adam? Im not saying what Maslow did or said was totally true. So, lets take him out of the equation and lets go on what is basically the center of humans.

Balbulican said...

"I feel anyone who is authority has a moral standard to do what is right."

No baiting at all. I agree. If you're in a position of trust, I will hold you to a higher standard of conduct (and so does the law, by the way.)

Canadian Sentinel said...

Absolutely it's right to hold clergy to a higher standard.

And I also agree that it's right to hold the President of the United States of America to a higher standard.

Alas, however, Mr. Obama is NOT held to a higher standard. He's held to a LOWER standard... including by none other than Mr. Balbulican, who believes that Mr. Obama needn't prove to us that he meets the Eligibility Clause requirements for being President.

"Why should he?" is NOT a legitimate, valid response to the question re whether he should show his real birth certificate (not his irrelevant, inadmissible "COLB"). Apparently, from my previous discussions with Balbulican, he believes that Obama needn't even be held to the same standard as I, who have to actually send my real BC to the government before they'll issue me a passport.

I need a BC to be allowed to enter the US, but one doesn't need one to be the POTUS? WTF!

Balbulican said...

If you'd like to open a thread on Birther Beliefs, Mr. Sentinel, I'll be happy to debate that with you. It seems a bit of a digression here.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Had to throw the POTUS Eligibility into the mix.

After all, Balbulican DID indicate that he believes that anyone in authority must be held to a higher standard.

But I know this dude from prev. commentary. He doesn't believe Obama, for some bizarre reason, has to show his birth certificate to be allowed to be President. He KNOWS precisely WHY Obama HAS to but hasn't been made to (ie. the DNC/Pelosi didn't do their Constitutional duty, as suggested by documents obtained by Canada Free Press, and Balbulican has already seen this evidence, for sure, for it was posted on this blog).

So would Mr. Balbulican wish to change his position and declare that Obama must therefore show us his birth certificate, according to Mr. Balbulican's own doctrine that people in authority MUST BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD?

Canadian Sentinel said...

As the Host, I require Mr. Balbulican to not be evasive because he DID open the door to "Birther Beliefs".

And he KNOWS that it's not a matter of "belief".

It's about the Constitution of the United States of America and the current POTUS being allowed to be held to a LOWER standard than The People.

I declare this topic to be valid for this thread because it pertains to the concept of holding authority to higher standards, and Balbulican opened that door by personally declaring that he believes that all authority (or are there exceptions, Mr. B?) must be held to a higher standard.

I must do this because I'm smelling hypocrisy emanating from the bearded gentleman in the green hat.

Balbulican said...

CS, I've been very civil here, and I would politely request the same courtesy from you. Thanks.

You clearly want to steer this conversation into an area of content you're more comfortable with, and it is, of course, your blog. So I'll be happy to oblige you. However, I'm not as well acquainted with Birther theory as you are, so please bear with me.

It would probably be helpful if we both said exactly what we actually believe about Obama's birth, plainly. I'll start, if you want.

I think he was born in Hawaii.

Where do you think he was born?

Canadian Sentinel said...

I know your position on the Eligibility Issue, Mr. Balbulican. Do I need to dig up your comments on Blogger... or are you now deleting them frantically?

Canadian Sentinel said...

Think... irrelevant.

It's about the EVIDENCE.

Q. Why does Obama refuse to produce the ONE document that will satisfy all?

Canadian Sentinel said...

Myself- I do not know where Obama was born.

There is zero valid evidence as to that.

So I could care less where people THINK he was born, based on old newspaper announcements (which are inadmissible for ordinary folks seeking passports etc).

But the issue is still authority being held to a higher standard.

Balbulican, do you believe that Obama needn't show his BC to prove Constitutional Eligibility, though you and I need to produce ours for a lot of stuff?

Balbulican said...

"Do I need to dig up your comments on Blogger... or are you now deleting them frantically?"

No, CS. I've never deleted anything. Why would I delete?

My position on the eligibility "issue" is completely clear. Like the majority of American citizens, I believe that Obama was eligible to run for President: as I stated above, I believe he was born in Hawaii.

"Balbulican, do you believe that Obama needn't show his BC to prove Constitutional Eligibility, though you and I need to produce ours for a lot of stuff?"

I'm not a lawyer, CS, so to be honest, I don't really know what the legal test for determining eligibility is. The courts seem to agree that he was eligible: isn't that the test?

But I could be wrong, and if you can point me the standard in law, I'll review it and comment.

"There is zero valid evidence as to that."

I guess that depends on how you define "valid". I've seen more evidence to support the premise of Obama's Hawaian birth than I have for any other hypothetical birthplace.

"Why does Obama refuse to produce the ONE document that will satisfy all?"

Heh. Well, I'm not his communications advisor, but if I were I'd counsel him to continue to ignore the birthers. Most people don't them seriously; more serious conservatives consider them an embarrassment; and to be frank, I don't even think most birthers actually believe it. The evidence of that? Only the TRUE nutcases are still arguing that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. The rest, like yourself, have moved to a "Well, he must be hiding SOMETHING!!" stance. Sorry, but that's EXACTLY the same kind of thinking that underlies the Truthers who believe George Bush was behind 9/11, or the crazies who believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the folks who think AIDS was a CIA plot.

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Balbs,
I have to disagree with your statment that most US citizens even convervatives think he is legit. I ask you, why is Arizona and other states demanding if he runs again or whoever runs satisfy the Constitutional requirements of a long form birth certificate? Also, the fact thats he is a NATURAL Born citizen...meaning BOTH parents have to be American citizens. He says in his own book in his own words his dad was born in Kenya...he wasnt a naturalized citizen. Just his MOTHER being a natural citizen doesnt make him one.

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Here in the US they are ok with letting Mexicans in who are NOT citizens and let them have their kids to make sure they vote the way they want. Now, where in the Constitution does it say thats ok?? It dont!

Then they allow the mother to stay because of child...they call them anchor babies. Is this far to the ones that come in legally?

glacierman said...

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S "Did God make Eve for Adam?"

Yes He did, as a "help meet". Eve was taken from the essence of Adam in the form of a rib and God formed Eve while Adam was in a deep sleep, as per the scriptures.

I was pondering this after it was mentioned in a book I was reading, and found that Adam was complete and whole but only one. It was when Adam saw that all the other animals in creation were paired that he longed for the same.

God, in his wisdom and understanding of companionship and relationship, made Eve from the very stock of Adam. God withdrew all the parts of the female (feminine) side of Adam and placed it in this new creation. Adam now had a counterpart to him which was built for his sharing and loving and companionship, and able to be in submission with him as to the life calling of the expansion of the Garden of Eden.

What fun!!! Somebody who was fully compatible and made in the image of God and built to help complete the task at hand!

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Glacierman,,
See every man has a feminine side..thats nice...lol.meaning they should understand us females.

Now,,question..do you think we are born good or bad...??

Balbulican said...

"I have to disagree with your statment that most US citizens even convervatives think he is legit."

Hi, Gabriella. The most recent poll I read on the topic was the 2009 Reasearch 2000 poll, which found 77% of Americans believed he was born in the US. Do you have more recent findings that demonstrate that a majority don't?

"Also, the fact thats he is a NATURAL Born citizen...meaning BOTH parents have to be American citizens."

The 14th Amendment, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" would appear to disagree with you. But again, if you can point me to a legal finding that validates your interpretation, I'd be interested in reviewing it.

glacierman said...

GG, Are you kidding me!? Men can't understand you females because nothing female has been left inside of us, don't forget that the Master Surgeon General did the work, He does all things well!!!!

God created everything and said it was "good".

Then sin entered the world through the disobedience of eating of the tree of knowledge and we all carry the curse of sin in us.

We are both!

glacierman said...

GG, as per your statement about sexual frustration; I don't believe this to be the case here with this priest.

In the video, he is clearly very intoxicated and under the influence of alcohol. Is the alcohol revealing his core nature or would it be revealing what kind of spiritual control he is manifesting under? Or would he be picking up the spirits that are present in the holding cell and have nothing to do with what his natural tendencies are? That would be some very interesting questions.

Me thinks that if this is who he is in private, then he has had much experience and is quite deviant. He has much explaining to do and would do well by seeking help and coming under some good counsel and prayer ministry, maybe even some cleaning of the spiritual temple, so to speak.

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Glacierman,
Im sorry to correct you on something, but I must, so no offence ok? You seem to have your knickers in an uproar..mmm. Ok, you were partially corrrect about when God spoke,"It is good" however...he spoke those words after each event of making the world..not making man. Let me guide you Gen 1 chapter only that says "It is good."Starting in chapter 2 begins man. In fact Gen 2:7 it states God formed man. OK...now onto the statement of how sin entered the world..correct on that. Now, I guess what I was getting at is how do you, if we are born with both,,,get rid of the bad? MM I think Im conveying that right.
Now, I think the priest intoxication brought out his inhibitions somewhat eh? So, I will say you are right with the rest of your statment.
Also...guys just dont want to understand us females..you can, but would take work..LOL We not that hard. Its about being in tune and I fortunately found a Canuck that I am definetly in tune with!!

Canadian Sentinel said...

Hmmmmm.

Indeed, women aren't that hard to understand, if one just listens and uses one's brain.

You betcha it's about being "in tune"!

And once a guy understands a particular girl... oh man! ;)

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

CS,
Sounds like you totally understand women. Sounds like you have a particular female..lol. Weird,,took you as the loner kind. I know my life has changed due to an understanding Canadian...who by the way Im traveling to see soon!!!

Canadian Sentinel said...

Mmm, Gabriella... you are VERY perceptive... ;)

I have no doubt that that Canuck is looking forward to the Big Day...

And I have no doubt that it's going to be awesome!

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

CS,
At least you not bashing women. If all guys could think with their right head, I bet women would be more responsive. See, guys think we nothing more than boobs and mm other parts. So, for a guy to see the brains in a female is a wonderful insight. Its like on this blog, I see I am battling the good ole boys club, but see, I also understand they smart and I appreciate that in a man.So, hard to offend a person who looks up to their knowledge and talents.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Agreed, Gaby.

Those who know me know that I truly appreciate a woman with a powerful brain. ;)

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Well CS, keep your woman happy and Im sure the rewards will be great!!! Thats how we are.

glacierman said...

CS, it is good when a man finds a life partner, it is a blessing and you will be a better man for it.

GG, as for the creation account, on the sixth day God created man and woman and the last verse of chapter one of Genesis says that God said that all that He had created was VERY GOOD. So not sure on the whole correction thing, seems like you didn't go back far enough or didn't see it. That is what the Word says.

Not sure how you perceive my knickers to be in a knot, but they are not, at least not on this blog. You will know when they are in a knot.

The whole idea of good and bad are a curious statement on your part. Not quite sure if you associate the issue of sin as being good verses bad. As it is sin which separates us from God, and that definition is an archery term for falling short and never being able to hit the mark, but God is looking for obedience from a heart which is in love with Him, not one which is only trying to stay on the good side of Him so we don't incur His wrath and punishment and try and stay out of hell if the "goodies" outweigh the "baddies".

As per this video, I believe that God's heart is broken with grief at the sight of one of His children/joint heirs who has been exposed for the world to see and brings shame and ridicule on His Body (the Church or Bride). Just like any one of us, we would be heartbroken if this was one of our kids. Now, if this was a rebellious child, there would be sure to be some anger and a certain part of us would have to be forced into the tough-love position of watching this and understanding that free will has a price and sometimes this is may have to be part of the wake-up call for this man to get his life straightened out.

glacierman said...

CS, if you are going to keep your woman "happy" as a life goal, you will be chasing your tail.

Stay focused on what your call is and be kind and remain a gentleman. You will win and earn her respect, then she will be happy.

Remember, we are all selfish at the core, you have to first allow that to be broken in yourself, then you can give from a heart full of love.

Balbulican said...

Whoa, whoa. As a 24 year veteran of happy marriage, with grandkid, I think I'm allowed to suggest that there's more to making your wife happy than "winning her respect". What worked for us was complete mutual support and mutual respect. Sometimes her career took top priority, sometimes mine did. I don't think there's a formula.

glacierman said...

Balb, did she still respect you, and was she always happy?

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

WOW..guys ...dont be such word nazi's!! SIGH>>>>>Ok..signing off for awhile. You guys need to chill a bit. Im sorry if I dont add EVERYTHING about a marriage that you are suggesting...I was married for 20 years so trust me, I know what it takes. Sorry you have to be so brutal in responses.

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

PS Glacierman...speak for yourself on the being selfish to the core. I can honestly say Im not and never have been. So using the word,ALL is pretty broad!

Balbulican said...

"Balb, did she still respect you, and was she always happy?"

She did indeed, and I her. More, I think.

Was she always happy? Good grief, dude: we raised kids, created a business, worked through the death of parents - no, neither of was "always" happy. Is anyone?

And I'm not sure how you've concluded that everyone is selfish to the core.

glacierman said...

Blab and GG,

Are you really trying to say that you don't have any issues with selfishness? No.....really!???

If you aren't and don't, then lightning has struck in two places at the same time and I am witness to it!!!

Woooohooooo!!! ;^D

Balbulican said...

A simple test of comprehension, glacierman. Can you distinguish between these two sentences?

"I don't have ANY issues with selfishness."

"I am not selfish at the core".

Too subtle a distinction?

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

AHHH Balbs....now.. I have to agree with you here..thanks ;)

Glacierman I wasnt going to speak to you again for awhile, but you are forcing me to..RRR. Can I ask why you get all cocky about this answer?? Is it impossible to not be selfish?? You DONT know me or what Ive done in my life...I can say I have given more of myself and asked for nothing in return. Did you ever hear of being "Christ-like"? Live as he wants us to? Im sure you have since you seem to know so much theology. Now, I think you owe me an apology!!! And CS, sorry. This isnt normally my way,however, Glacierman needs a slight tune up.

Canadian Sentinel said...

No problem, Gaby.

glacierman said...

GG and Balb, I am sorry if I have offended you regarding the "selfishness to the core" statement. It is not my intention to be accusitory without knowing you, your character or your pasts.

That being said, I do have concerns if such banter has caused such a rift already between us. It is hard to debate with precision with words and I should have used the term "selfish AT the core" not the "to" but there is a reason for the statement.

I need to watch my words more closely in the future, but blogging is at times reactionary, conveyance of intent can be tricky.

As for this "little" thing of selfishness! I do not know what your spiritual condition is, that is why I made the statement of us being selfish to(at) the core. If you are not born again, then you are controlled by your soul and body (flesh) and yes, you are selfish to the core (that includes you too, Balb) but if born again, then you are to be controlled by the Spirit of the Lord, and you are doing the will of the Father and there is no selfish motivation. This is what I would assume you to be referring to by giving more of yourself and asking nothing in return. Christ-likeness is indeed the highest standard here on this earth and only attainable by the Spirit, good on you for it. You will have your reward and much blessing on you for doing so.

GG, I take it that you are of the Spirit, as you made reference to what I have said earlier. I have a question regarding your statement about making sure that happiness was the goal of every husband. I know that it is the American dream to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but that is not, and never part of the call of us as husbands. Happiness is an emotion, we are not responsible for emotional outcomes, so I am curious as what you meant by that statement?

I hope this clears things up a bit, and you will not withhold your comments, as I really am a great guy...just ask my wife...OK, maybe not. (Doh!!!)

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Glacierman,
Thank you for the apology it truly is appreciated. Marriage, you are correct is not all about being happy, I was told not to overflood on here with lots of info, so I am just abiding the wishes.

You are correct happiness is an emotion and yet without being happy, in love, in tune, and spitually connected (along with so much more) and as you mentioned in earlier post,to be kind and respectful to the spouse is all part of a marriage. I learned from a very early age that marriage is a 24/7 job 365 days. I can tell you that if you are not happy and respect the other person chances are the marriage is doomed..I know for a fact. When you are happy does you whole being project it outwardly? Right now I have fallen in love with a man and we are emotionally bonded. We know God has put us together due to other cicumstances that we have talked about.
You are absouluty correct on my spirtuality. I have been saved (born again) since I was 22. I have been lead by the Holy Spirit since I was 18 though and didnt know. I had a life changing event happen and it was huge. See, thats why I asked do you think we are born good or evil.Took me long time to understand,because of course people think we born good. It is in us however, its not until we recieve Christ into our hearts that makes us truly good, but at birth we are not.
Glacierman, I understand exactly what it means being married and all the trials one will encounter. Its through the valleys and mountains that make you your strongest. Sure, as a spouse dont you want to make your spouse happy? I know you dont want to make them sad eh? You want to be all you can be with them and for them. My ex use to say the same thing about happiness. Yet, he did just opposite of what a husband should have done. Oh,he was good provider and great dad/grandfather, however, he didnt know what it took to be a husband emotionally.
You talk about respect, so true..can you have that for someone as they hit you, yell at you, treat you as a child and not a wife?? Of course not, and yet I tried for 20 years half my life then. Now, 9 years later I find a man whom has repect and love that takes to make a great union. I have been gun shy this long,holding out and I finally know God has lead me to my partner in life!
Also, again thank you for the apology and no, I will not withold because I do know what its like when you are typing and thinking and stuff comes out wrong way. I truly apprecite this, make my day because I hate to be mad at anyone.

Canadian Sentinel said...

I'm in agreement with Gabriella.

Balbulican said...

"If you are not born again, then you are controlled by your soul and body (flesh) and yes, you are selfish to the core (that includes you too, Balb)."

Shrug. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs. I personally don't think much of folks who judge others exclusively based on their own religious code - reminds me too much of Reverend Phelps, or the Taliban.

glacierman said...

GG, Thanks! CS, I agree too!

It is hard to speak truth to people when you are unable to get to know them in real time, not just these words flying through the air.

Congratulations on your new found love, sorry it took so long and at a great price! And I agree that life is hard, but God is good, He always is. Faith is the only thing that can keep us from imploding and then we are stuck on self-righteous, instead of freedom to give and share and be selfless!

It will be a pleasure and very interesting to sharpen iron on this blog with you all, I look forward to it.

glacierman said...

Blab, either you are ignorant, stupid or a liar; which is it?

My beliefs are equal to those of the Taliban and Rev. Phelps. Do show the examples from what I have written.

Go to any medical and/or soft science textbooks and you will find references to spirit, soul and body. This is fact not just a belief system. Your ignorance in this matter is laughable and invalidates your reasoning. Junk science beliefs are what run your world?

Balbulican said...

"Blab, either you are ignorant, stupid or a liar; which is it? "

I can't say I'm impressed at the degree to which the spirit of Christ infuses your communication style, G.

"My beliefs are equal to those of the Taliban and Rev. Phelps."

"Equal"? Well, I don't know exactly what you believe, so I can't really say.

However, what you share with the Taliban and Mr. Phelps (sorry, I don't think a professional hatemonger is entitled to the honorific "Reverend") is your willingness to pass moral judgment on strangers because they don't share your religious views.

I'm very happy you're born again, and I'm glad that' brought you some joy.

Now work a little on the humility.

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Ugh...Glacierman and Balbs..I wasnt going to get in this but well I have to..lol.

Blabs..you are correct you can have whatever beliefs you want that is one of the beautiful things God let us do..to choose.

Glacierman,Im sorry I must disagree in a way with you and I knowwww..we just kissed and made up ;) However, you know as well as I that that is why Jesus came to Earth, to shed his blood for us and at the same time he gave us the freedom to choose him or reject him. Whats really sad, my father born and raised a Catholic denys theres a God also. So, one day I asked him, wouldnt you rather take a chance and believe to live forever in heaven OR take the chance of not believing and go to hell? I think the only thing we can do is share the gospel. In fact I was honored to aquire a book called, Share Jesus without Fear by William Fay. Anyway, very interesting story of him and what he is all about. So, I have learned through the years also thats all you can do. If they dont want to accept, their choice. We in the end are not the final judge. However, I understand you frustration...we are still good mmm??;)

glacierman said...

Blab, kettle black?

Taliban? Rev Phelps? Those are fighting words and your condescension is neither missed nor appreciated.

You accuse me of passing moral judgment when I have not done so. You obviously don't understand my beliefs, yet you are willing to throw me into the pile with killers and blasphemers, that is what I find offensive. Not at all an uncommon judgment from those who don't take the time to do some studying on these matters. When was the last time you spent any time reading the Bible or asking someone who is a Christian about their belief with genuine interest and a willingness to learn something outside of your preconceived ideas and prejudices?

As GG has rightly stated, you have the God-given right and freedom of choice. But, you don't have the freedom to stay willfully ignorant of somebodies beliefs and then equate them with those who's hearts are intent on being and doing evil.

My aggression towards your statements is but a reaction to your attitude towards something which is dear and close to my heart. When you disparage God, you are talking about my Daddy, and that will give you some indication as to level of frustration I have with your statements. If I were to talk about your mother or father in the same way, no doubt you would have a similar reaction. It is personal, and you don't have a clue about that which you correlate the Taliban and me.

And GG, we are bugs in a rug, all is well.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Excellent points, Glacierman.

I noticed the Balbster's ad-hominem attack on you. It was decidedly... uncivil.

Mr. Balbulican, you know better, as you blew up when I ad-hominemized you as being in the same camp as the anti-Semites and the Allahu-Akhbars when you blasted Israel for the Gaza Flotilla boarding incident, as if they should never have exercised thier 100% legally-backed rights in the first place, and as if they were responsible for the above-deck fecking-assholes' provoked-by-nothing-but-bloodlusty-Jew-hatred attempted murder campaign against them.

Please don't insult me and pretend you don't remember that. You DO, because for months you hated my guts so much you left many nasty comments, most of which i deigned not to publish (you forced me to turn on moderation so long as your behavior was thus). So I know you cannot have forgotten. Alternatively, of course, it's plausible that someone's impersonating you, using your green-hat avatar and everything, but I doubt it.

You know better, my good man. You don't want to stoop to my level, do you? ;)

Balbulican said...

I'll respond to Glacierman in his own words.

Quote 1;
"You accuse me of passing moral judgment when I have not done so."

Quote 2"
"If you are not born again, then you are controlled by your soul and body (flesh) and yes, you are selfish to the core (that includes you too, Balb)"

Case closed.

Balbulican said...

Sentinel:

"I noticed the Balbster's ad-hominem attack on you. It was decidedly... uncivil."

Naw. I'm sure it was uncomfortable - folks who judge and insult others from the pulpit don't like being reminded of Christs's words on motes and beams, or his injunctions on judging ohers. But I don't mind providing brother glacierman with a little obviously-needed spiritual counseling.

As for ad hominems: I'm just trying to the get the rules straight. So "liar", "ignorant" and "stupid" are all good?

Anonymous said...

http://www.thercg.org/books/wdbam.html#c

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Anonymous...impressive web site and so close to my hometown. Maybe a visit is in order ;)

glacierman said...

Blab,

Your attempt at closing the case once again shows your lack of knowledge and understanding. Please allow me to ask you some questions, so as to help clarify your conclusions.

Please take some time to read some of the Bible (the Gospel of John - Chapter 3)and then ask yourself if you are born of the Spirit of God.

You appear to have no understanding of what is meant when I say that you are selfish to the core. Can you honestly say that you are not controlled by your feelings and emotions to do what it is that you do each and every day? What motivates you to be selfless?

You cannot be lead or motivated by God or by the Holy Spirit if you have not been born into that family.

You can say that you are from the house of Windsor and an heir to the throne, study all the books, spend time at Buckingham Palace and be tutored by the Queen, share meals. But unless you have been conceived and born by Her Majesty or she has found it in her heart to adopt you, you have a better chance of selling snowballs to the Inuit than you do in being the new King of England. Just like the Kingdom of God, you have to be born into the Kingdom, which means that your spirit has to die and a new one has to be made alive, but not your spirit but the Spirit of God living in you.

As for your statements about equating me to the Taliban and Rev Phelps, I have not yet received an apology, which I would take as you not believing one is deserved.

So which is it to best describe your words towards me...are you "lying" or at least willfully dishonest about your statement; are you ignorant of what you assume to be the likeness between me and the Taliban; or are you using words which you do not understand to make an irrational point, therefore making you stupid?

Balbulican said...

My dear fellow, it's very simple.

You passed moral judgment on me, then claimed not have done so. That doesn't bother me: your assessment of my moral state is based on your personal frame of reference and beliefs. You're absolutely entitled to them, but they don't much interest me. I hope you'll forgive me for saying so, but I see very little evidence of Christ's spirit in your attitude.

As for the Phelps/Taliban comparison - well, here's friendly hint. If you don't want to be COMPARED to people who pass peremptory, condemnatory moral judgment on others, then don't pass condemnatory moral judgment on others. Couldn't be simpler.

You'll note that I don't compare Gabriella to those nasty folks. That should be your clue. It's not about what your religious beliefs: it's about your tendency to judge others.

glacierman said...

Blab, side-stepping again. You have not answered any of the questions which I have asked you. I am not sure what CS has for standards regarding answering direct questions, but I would expect you to answer them, just as I have tried to answers yours...out of respect of your attempt to dialogue.

You have stated that these are my personal frames of reference and beliefs, but morals do not come from people, they come from God. So where is it that you have established your moral compass?

You have stated that I have made a moral judgment, but I am holding you up to the Biblical standard, not my own standard or one which I perceive. This may have been lost in translation, for that I will give you some grace, as you obviously don't understand the concept.

Balbulican said...

Oh, dear. Let me try to help you.

You have a holy book which you, and many others, believe to be the word of God.

Now, all that entitles you to say is something like this: "according to my interpretation of the specific rulebook that I happen to like (as opposed to the Torah, the Koran, the Baghavad-Gita, and other sacred texts), Balb, you MUST be "selfish to the core".

At which point, I can nod politely, and say: "Gosh, what an interesting rulebook. Thanks for sharing."

You see, G., you're absolutely entitled to believe whatever you want about the universe. But when you tell a near stranger they're selfish to the core because they don't accept your interpretation of your rulebook, you're doing precisely what the Taliban or the Reverend Phelps do. Don't like that? Change your attitude.

As for answering direct questions, fair enough.

"When was the last time you spent any time reading the Bible?"

About two nights ago. It's one of my favorite bedside books. The King James translation, Folio edition.

"...or asking someone who is a Christian about their belief with genuine interest and a willingness to learn something outside of your preconceived ideas and prejudices?"

Like my dad (Catholic, deceased), my mom (Catholic, deceased), my aunt Anne of the Order of the Shepherds of Good Hope, my friend Father Mike, Jesuit, who performed my marriage ceremony, or any of my dozens of Christian friends and relatives? My friend, corporate partner and co-author Jennifer?

Oh, we speak about religion frequently. It's a fascinating topic. They don't accuse me of failing to meet their moral specifications (possibly because they, unlike you, know me); that makes exchange possible.

glacierman said...

Blab, thanks for that!

How many of them, would you say would be "born again"?

Why don't you ask one of those whom you call a friend and mentor what selfishness is in the context of their interpretation of the Word as it relates to being born of the Spirit. I stand by my statement, that if we are not born again of God's Spirit, then selfishness is the controlling factor in our life. It does not mean that we are unable to give and receive, but we are controlled by a selfish spirit.

You have said that you read the Bible often. That is awesome!!! Why not ask God to reveal by His Spirit, the truth of the selfishness of the heart of man vs. the giving of the Spirit.

As we dialogue on this site you and I will agree and disagree, let's just keep it civil, without the ad hominems. We can only learn by reading, listening and then thinking and discerning what is right and true.

As per the other texts which you call sacred, the root of the Bible is the Torah. All the others are rip-offs of that text, and poor ones at that.

JMHO

Canadian Sentinel said...

"As for the Phelps/Taliban comparison - well, here's friendly hint. If you don't want to be COMPARED to people who pass peremptory, condemnatory moral judgment on others, then don't pass condemnatory moral judgment on others. Couldn't be simpler. "

-Balbulican

Hmm. How about you compare also to the Left and to the GLBT revolutionaries? To Obama? Etc., etc... ;)

∞ ≠ ø said...

"@Squidly
You are sometimes incoherent, you babble on, you like to hear yourself pontificate."

REALLY???

Fascinating.


Balbulican:
Beer's on me.

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Infin...your back!

∞ ≠ ø said...

Yes.
...and, by the way, :)

I was Anon 9:22. I did not want the reference to be tainted.

Sometimes I throw Balb a ball to play with. So far he has never picked one up. Recently I tossed in a grammar grenade; it was early in that lengthy thread beginning with 'whom.' His grammar was correct.
Later I asked him to Google Harper's toothpaste cliché. It's an H.R. Haldeman original. Very interesting that that particular phrase should reappear.
This one does rather a good job on the term "born again." I find Canuckguy's position elitist and insufferable.

I consider elitism to be the father of all evil.

This thread would have been better served by limericks at 20 keystrokes.

Many loose ends above...
Which one to pick? Hmmmmm

Balbulican said...

"Hmm. How about you compare also to the Left and to the GLBT revolutionaries? To Obama? Etc., etc... ;)"

Well, because we're talking primarily religious zealotry, CS.

Canadian Sentinel said...

The Left and GLBTism are basically religions too, albeit atheistic ones... based on faith, belief...

Canadian Sentinel said...

Besides, Blabs, u did say simply:

"If you don't want to be COMPARED to people who pass peremptory, condemnatory moral judgment on others, then don't pass condemnatory moral judgment on others. Couldn't be simpler"

You didn't mention religion at all there.

Please quit the weasel dance. It's a little silly. Haha

Balbulican said...

CS - remember you're trying to upgrade the quality of discussion here. That sometimes requires paying attention to the sentences that come before and after any given sentence. :)

Canadian Sentinel said...

Oh geez... LOL

glacierman said...

By the way squigley, checked out the link and was an entertaining read. Armstrong was a loose cannon and Pack is a polished loose cannon.

He has much knowledge about many areas of the Bible and theology, but his belief system about the Kingdom-now and being born again are whacked.

The Kingdom is here now, alive in each believer who has been born of the Spirit of God. How else can people be healed by faith and raised from the dead if the Kingdom isn't present, just as Jesus said it was when He was here on the ball in physical form?

glacierman said...

Blab, so by religious zealotry you are saying that it is wrong to be zealous for the Word of God and for seeing righteousness and peace and kindness and selflessness?

Without those who are zealous in this manner, this world would look a whole lot more like Afganistan and Pakistan than it does right now. Or Egypt, or Tunisia, or Lybia, or Iran or Iraq. Is this what you mean by remaining a lap dog to those who's desire it is to take control of the whole earth and swing the sword and publicly stone people to death and settle their honour disputes by putting people to death.

Just trying to understand how you think that the Koran is even close to the Bible in its authority and direction for our lives.

∞ ≠ ø said...

Then try this:

http://www.goddiscussion.com/20730/against-the-protestant-gnostics/

Philip J. Lee apparently is or was in St. John.

Balbulican said...

I guess if being "zealous for the word of God" means destroying ancient images of other Gods (like the Taliban), or screaming that "God hates fags", or murdering in the name of Christ in Uganda, or insulting folks you don't know because they don't share your beliefs, then no, I'm not a big fan of religious zealotry.

I think those are all examples of taking a spark of revelation or spiritual insight and turning it into something ugly. Those who do so are infallibly convinced that they are doing God's will.

You know how I tell the difference? I look for the "peace and kindness and selflessness" in their messaging.

When I find myself engaged with folks who feel the need to make their point by telling me how badly I fail their spiritual sniff test - Muslim, Christian, or whatever -I know that I'm talking to someone who has nothing to say about Christianity I need to hear.

Thanks, though. And good luck with that pride thing.